The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant changed the account of remittance of commercial rent to the account in the name of the Defendant, but this is due to the fact that the Defendant lawfully transferred the claim for rent to repay his/her debts to M, and the Defendant’s company operating the company is more than his/her debts and there was no reason to conceal the company’s property. The reason why the Defendant re-transfer the rent that was transferred to the account in the name of M to the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant is because the Defendant temporarily borrowed the money needed for the process of forest

Therefore, even though the Defendant did not conceal the property by changing the account of remittance of rent for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime and is in the objective condition that is practically likely to be subject to the execution of compulsory execution or provisional seizure provisional seizure under the Civil Procedure Act, namely, where a creditor has a risk of undermining the creditor by concealing, destroying, falsely transferring property or bearing false debts for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under a state in which he/she appears to institute or institute a lawsuit on the merits or on the part of the creditor, it is established that there is a risk of undermining the creditor. It is not necessarily a crime that causes damage to the creditor, or an actor does not necessarily lead to any gain, and it is not readily concluded that there is no risk of undermining the creditor on the ground that there is a little other property in the crime of evading compulsory execution. Meanwhile, in the crime

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3999 Decided June 28, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4585 Decided April 24, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do4585 Decided April 28, 201.